Indiana Jones & Terrestrial Radio

Interesting title for a blog, eh?

If you're an Indiana Jones fan - or at least have seen one or two of the franchise movies - you know there is always a moment when Indie is faced with being left alone behind a sliding door with spiders or snakes. But, at the last second, he manages to pull out that trusty whip of his and snag it on a branch on the other side of the closing door and he is able to swing himself through to be alive for another day! Hurray!

This happens in the latest Indiana Jones movie as well and it enabled me to visualize what is happening terrestrial radio. The industry is at a significant crossroad and is in severe danger of being left behind a impenetrable door.

I've been researching the radio industry in earnest with my company Bridge Ratings since 2002 and have watched trends from a vantage point few have. Our projects cover everything component of radio listener usage. Over the last six years there were actually moments when radio's pulse increased as if its efforts to postpone or stop listening attrition were beginning to find traction, only to learn in a project 3 or six months later, that what I witnessed was a false revival or it was still-born.

Now with six years 'visibility', and with multiple signposts struggling to show improvement, the industry's efforts may now be too little too late.

What signposts do I pay attention to?

• Young listeners' time spent with the medium
• The multiple alternate media listeners of all ages are using over time
• Strategies used by media companies and how they play out
• Stock price of terrestrial radio companies and how that price has been affected by corporate decisions
• Media coverage of terrestrial radio
• Changes in consumer interest in Internet, Satellite and HD Radio

Of late, the most revealing signpost has been that of corporate radio's decision-making. In the period of 2002 to 2008, we tracked a greater number of missteps or no-decisions that hastened a company's inability to compete.

Poor programming decisions, lack of marketing resources, reduction of key management personnel and slowness to adapt to changing technologies; these are all key contributors to terrestrial radio's current malaise and more of these contributors have had as their source the poor decisions and lack of focus at radio's corporate headquarters (a generalization). There remain a handful of broadcast executives who 'get it', but not enough. It's like an V-8engine running on one cylander.

An objective observer to these trends would perceive (almost) that in many cases the industry had given up the fight or is simply resting on its aging laurels. And that wouldn't be far from the facts.

Terrestrial radio can learn at least one thing from Indiana Jones and that is courage. Our fictional hero never seems to give up even in the face of some of the ugliest circumstances placed before him. And while terrestrial radio as a whole has a tougher time reacting to change than our celluloid hero, the industry cannot afford to be left behind that slowly closing door without a whip.

Certainly the radio industry is hobbled by new technologies it simply cannot compete with, but it is being forced to change with the times which is a good thing. It can offer young and old a new blend of media that is better than its version before there were MP3 players, the Internet or satellite radio.

It only requires the old Indie courage. Where will our heroes come from?

Local, Local, Local

I've been at my new job at ABC radio for about a month now and it's great; I'm really enjoying the fact that as Vice President of ABC Radio Networks' Affiliate Relations department, I can interact with so many radio stations across our grand land.

The lessons I learned through my years of working at Bridge Ratings I brought with me and after a few weeks communicating with a much more diverse group of stations than I ever have before, here's what I've learned:

1. Regardless of market size everyone has the same problems and opportunities.

It wasn't always this way, you know. Before consolidation took our industry by storm, major markets and stations in the top 50 had far different considerations in operating their businesses than did operators in markets 51 and below. Pre-'96, top 50 market stations had operating budgets that included marketing, promotion and research. They also had personnel resources that allowed them to be extremely competitive and allowed them to keep their eyes on the various balls they had to juggle. Major market operators only recently have had to deal with managers overseeing multiple stations. Top 50 stations in those days actually had time to plan and strategize for the future and act upon those strategies. They also have years more experience operating multiple properties than do their big market cousins.

Medium and small market operators have always had to work harder at making their businesses work. They did so with good old fashioned sweat and creativity along with building relationships. They still do it this way today.

2. Medium and small market operators are more aware of the importance of reflecting the local audience.

While this has been a staple of broadcast operations for-ever, somewhere along the line major market radio pushed it to the back burner. Now, I'm generalizing here because there are some major market operators who have not only remembered this important element of serving the public interest, they use their major market resources to make a difference in their towns and cities.

Local radio has always been compelling. The genericizing of American radio which has been pushed along by companies with such huge footprints as Clear Channel have literally taken the spine out of these stations which no longer sound like their communities. These stations provide impetus for all listeners - not just Gen-X, Y and Z - to seek alternative entertainment by virtue of the obvious lack of interest in their local communities.

3. Major market management drink their own kool-aid.

These people are so impressed with their climb to the top many have forgotten their roots. I was visiting a small market operator a couple of weeks back and I was taken by his continued passion and optimism for our business.

On the other hand, not a phone call I have with major market managers doesn't include a doomsday outlook. Small market operators don't fear Internet and satellite radio like their big market brethren. Perhaps there is some legitimacy to this perspective since there seems to be wider consumer acceptance of these technologies in the larger markets, yet I have spoken with some major market management who understand that it is NOT Internet radio and it is NOT satellite radio that has caused terrestrial radio's ills.

My view of the radio landscape is undergoing some adjustment simply because I am now exposed to a broader perspective and I love that. In fact, this broader perspective has allowed me to share some of the small and medium market wisdom with the big boys who seem to react positively to a fresh perspective.

I look forward to being exposed to the inclinations of all of the broadcasters I come in contact with these days and sharing them with each other in a way that perhaps has never been done before.

After all the things I learned through the consulting work I've done through my Bridge Ratings experience, I didn't have the ability to share with the industry the insight of so many others.

The insight seems to be helping gain perspective which we can all use from time to time.

What's Good for the Radio Goose....

Since February's announcement that Sirius satellite radio was interested in acquiring XM, we've seen many twists and turns in Mel Karmazin's effort to convince the FCC and others that a merger is in the best interests of consumers. In Mel's usual style, he has done an expert job of laying out the rationale and presenting it in an intelligent, non-offensive manner.

However, as we near the end of 2007, we seem to be very close to a decision on this event and as I mentioned in an earlier blog, my money now is on the merger getting approved.

The National Association of Broadcasters has done a respectable job of countering satellite radio's rationale in favor of a merger, but the time has come for the NAB to face the "Rule of Consolidation".

The fact is that the NAB has lobbied for consolidation of the radio industry since the early 90's and got permission for radio companies to begin buying up each other in a 1996 act of Congress.

The argument was that not only is consolidation good for the business - it's good for the consumer.

Now, eleven years later, many in our business - even on Wall Street - believe that this wave of consolidation has had negative repercussions on the financial well-being of the radio business.

Again, in the last two years, the major radio companies have been stamping their feet for further consolidation. It seems that owning 8 radio stations in the biggest radio markets wasn't enough. There are those who want to own 10 or more stations in the same market.

Yet when it comes to satellite radio consolidating, the radio industry says "no".

The radio industry is concerned about this proposed merger for many reasons...but none of them are truly onerous.

If the radio industry manages their business properly...

• A merged satellite radio company will not significantly impact its listenership
• A merged satellite radio company will not impact radio's revenues and profits

This deal has been examined every which way and in the end, there are no grounds to prevent it.

Bridge Ratings has been studying consumers' reaction to the proposed merger since it was announced in February. Over time and 5 studies, current satellite radio subscribers have become less concerned about the impact of such a merger. Potential satellite radio subscribers are confused, but most will delay their decision to subscribe until a decision is made. This is one reason why year-to-year satellite radio subscriber rates have fallen so precipitously in the last year.

The only negative impact the merger has had on the satellite radio companies is that the news of a potential merger has derailed the sector's growth. That's only temporary.

Satellite radio is a niche business and a merger will not automatically make it a broad-based appeal business.

If consolidation was good for the radio goose why isn't it good for the satellite gander?

HD Radio: Why Marketing Matters

I was impressed with the British Invasion in the 1960's. "Those Brits are real good", I thought to myself as the whole string of music successes starting with the Beatles came across the 'pond' to invade America.

Now, they're showing up America once again, but this time it's in the area of HD radio - or "Digital Radio" as they package it.

In a survey just released by Britain's ratings service RAJAR, more than 25% of the British population listen to digital radio, defined as Digital Audio Broadcasting, Digital Television and the Internet.

At first glance, this is rather impressive. However, when combining those three digital radio sources in the U.S., the percentage of the American populous that listens to some form of digital radio is closer to 50%:

• Internet radio - 60 million
• HD Radio - 500,000
• Digital TV - 90 million homes

What is intriguing is the marketing of digital radios (comparable to the U.S. HD concept).

Unlike the U.S. where broadcasters must market HD radio by themselves and with the help of the National Association of Broadcasters, the United Kingdom has a dedicated body: the Digital Radio Development Bureau.

It has become clear in our studies at Bridge Ratings that there is considerable consumer confusion in the U.S. about HD radio and its benefits. Three quarters of the U.S. population has heard of "HD Radio". Less than 5% really want it.

So, the Brits and their Digital Radio Development Bureau are taking the U.S. broadcasters to school about digital radio. Here are some of the ways Digital Radio is marketed in the UK:

• More Choice - "Because of the way it transmits a signal, DAB Digital Radio can double the number of radio stations you can get on FM. Many cities will pick up around 40 stations, and in London you can receive more than 50!

There are national, local and regional stations on DAB Digital Radio, and more than 85% of the population is covered by the DAB signal.

It's not just more of the same... there are new, unique stations on DAB with programmes designed for different segments of the population. So, rather than trying to be all things to all people, DAB means you can have stations dedicated entirely to dance, hip-hop, garage, rock, jazz, big band, country, pop, soul and disco. Or your can get stations specifically for young children, the mature listener, ethnic communities, news junkies, sports fans, lovers of the spoken word, world music and environmentalists, gays, classical buffs, ...in other words, something for everyone."

• No Interference - "DAB Digital Radio means interference free listening in digital quality sound. There's no hiss, crackle, or pop, no fading, no overlap, just great radio all the time. We've surveyed thousands of DAB owners and nearly 90% reckon DAB sounds great."

• Ease of Use - "Quick, what's the frequency of your favourite FM radio station? You'd be surprised how many people know the name, and kind of, sort of where it is on the dial, but waste time searching around for it. Some people are even afraid to change stations because they worry they'll never get back to their favourite. Others mark the dial with a pen, or sticky tape so they'll always be able to find their way home... a bit like a trail of breadcrumbs.
  
  With a DAB Digital Radio there are no frequencies. Just choose the station you want by name from the text display screen. It's easy every time and you don't need to worry about getting lost."

• Control Time - "With some DAB Digital Radios let you pause and rewind live radio. And with some of the latest models, you can record radio to a memory card. For the first time this puts you in control of when you listen to the radio. You can stop time, go back in time, or set a timer to record a future programme."

• No Re-tuning - "National DAB Digital Radio stations, both commercial and BBC, are broadcast on the same frequency across the country, so you never need to retune when you're on the move."

Does all this sound vaguely familiar to you? It should because it is almost exactly the Satellite Radio model. In the UK, though, the contemporary evolution of radio is focused on Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) services, such as HD Radio rather than satellite radio.

Much has been said of American radio's indecisiveness when it came to moving into the 21st century with HD/Digital Radio. It took so long, Satellite Radio took the position right away from U.S. Broadcasters. And now the fight to insert HD radio into the lives of Americans has become an offer of another product where there already is one.

Yet, marketing may solve this problem - but it also may be too late.

In our society we thrive on choice - too much choice - and the successful products that have identical competitors are the ones that market and position themselves most skillfully. Has anyone read Ries & Trout's The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing"?

Oh, and one more thing. Digital radios in the UK start at about $58 (29 pounds).

So, while the UK has managed to effectively launch Digital Radio, U.S. Broadcasters - who should know better - are fighting a positioning battle which, frankly, is over.

HD Radio in the U.S. is a niche market out sized by Internet Radio and Digital TV music services. And portable digital radio will be real with the arrival in the near future of wide-area-wireless Internet or Wi-Max.

This lesson has been difficult to learn - but it is time to face the facts.

The Little Merger That Could

Here we are six months down the road from the first announcement by XM and Sirius that they intended to merge these two companies to form a singular satellite radio company.

From the beginning, Bridge Ratings has examined the response by the consumer - both current and potential satellite radio subscribers - to better understand the perceptions about such a merger.

From the start, the mood among both groups of consumers was not positive. In fact, they were very near equal. The general consensus was that it would be bad for the public. The current subscribers we interviewed were more concerned than the potential subscriber group, but I think that had more to do with the passion current subscribers have for their preferred service and an emotional response to change.

Now, six months later, the mood has generally moved to the more positive side by current subscribers while potential subs have not moved much off their initial "monopolies aren't good for consumers" position. Perhaps the difference in perceptions by these two consumer groups has more to do with the satellite companies marketing to these subscribers. I think they simply did a better job internally marketing the coming merger.

And as Congress considers Mel Karmazin's statements and all the supportive paperwork associated with both sides' reasons for merging or not, there are two signs now that are much clearer for me which point to the approval of this merger.

1) God love David Rehr, President of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). He has been on the job only a short time and done a great job. He has certainly made a case for his passion for the radio business and his willingness and ability to be direct and confrontational in defense of all things radio.

As a great consumer products CEO once told me about products of all kind, "Products have strengths and weaknesses...and in most cases, one's strength is also one's weakness."

In the case of the NAB and Mr. Rehr in particular, he doth protest too much.

In his passion to protect radio in the case of a satellite merger, Mr. Rehr has firmly crystallized Mr. Karmazin's point that a merged satellite company is not a monopoly because the "marketplace" is varied with many competitive offerings.

The whole merger approval likely will hinge on a singular point: the definition of the competitive market in which satellite radio competes. Is their market satellite radio? Or is it all audio radio which today is defined not only by satellite radio, but traditional radio, Internet radio, iPods, iPhones, Podcasts, cell phones, etc., etc.

Mr. Rehr's enthusiasm has confirmed for Congress that terrestrial radio is so concerned about the possibility of a merger, that the louder Mr. Rehr protests, the more obvious it is that traditional radio considers satellite radio a competitive medium thereby defining the market.

The second reason I think this merger will go forward?

The early departure of XM's brilliant CEO Hugh Panero. He was to leave his post at the point the merger occurred, but the news is so encouraging, Hugh has set an August date for vacating his office in order for the cleaning crews in DC to get his office ready for Mel. There's confidence there that cannot be denied and it is backed by encouragement from Capitol Hill.

Now with everything I know, I believe that between XM & Sirius, the combined entity will offer a solid consumer product, will not diminish the current experience and will encourage potential subscribers - especially those buying cars and trucks - to go forward with their choice.

And, oh yes, I forgot: Howard Stern will attract an additional 500,000 to 800,000 new listeners over the next 18 months. XM subscribers who have missed him.

Was the approval of this merger terrestrial radio's to lose? I think so. The strategy was wrong. The NAB made the case for the other side.

Radio should now forget about satellite radio as a competitor, get back on track (it's been distracted for five years) and look to developing better content, re-hire its best talent that has left the business and market its digital platforms.

Your comments are always welcome.

Terrestrial Radio:The Old Dog is Resilient

How is satellite radio doing? Judging by Bridge Ratings' just-released data covering the first four months of 2007 - not too well. And now XM has issued their first quarter report by announcing that though they had a losing quarter financially, subscriber growth surpassed the 8 million mark.

XM, which agreed to be bought by rival Sirius, reported a loss of $122.4 million, or 40 cents per share, narrower than $151.4 million, or 60 cents per share, in the year-ago period.

Revenue rose 27%, to $264.1 million, from $208 million last year. Makes it sound like XM's making progress.

The company ended the quarter with 7.9 million subscribers, up from 6.5 million a year ago. Last year, XM forecast that subscribers would exceed 8 million by the end of 2006, but scaled back that target significantly as retail sales of its radios waned. XM now expects to have 9 million to 9.2 million subscribers by the end of 2007, with subscription revenue for the year around $1 billion. Bridge Ratings estimates that subscriber number will be closer to 8.9 million - but, wait, we still have the summer months to get through.

Summer '06 was a comparative dead spot for consumer interest in satellite radio in general and that was before a merger of the two services was announced. Typically, merger news tends to send a 'caution' sign to consumers and it's either that or something is terribly wrong with the public's opinion of satellite radio that is causing a lull.

How can I say that when XM reports Q1 growth of several hundred thousand subscribers?

XM announced that they had passed 8 million subscribers adding 868,000 paying subscribers. But they lost 584,000 who did not renew their subscriptions! Is this a good sign? I think not. So, XM's net gain in Q1 2007 was 285,000 subscribers and that's why the true number of XM subscribers comes to around 7.9 million.

Based on past quarters when Sirius has grabbed a 60 share of subscriptions, it's possible that we'll see a net gain for Sirius in the 427,000 range for a total sector quarterly net gain of around 712,000 subscribers which is comparable to satellite radio's worst 2006 quarter (Q3).

What's interesting is that these companies continue to sign subscribers but it's getting much more difficult as time passes. 67% of XM's hard-earned first quarter subscriber gains were wiped out by consumers who did not find the value in retaining their subscriptions.

Actually, this is not all that far off from the typical performance for new companies with sharp growth curves like those that have existed in the satellite radio space for the last three years. And while there are those in that industry that underscore the fact that satellite radio growth is the fastest new media introduction ever, we are now seeing that its growth is also flattening faster than any previous new media play. Satellite radio as an industry is maturing faster than one would expect from such a new technology. This is what Bridge Ratings has been projecting for the last few years. And while 2006 was a turning point for the sector, 2007 will be a more difficult year for satellite radio.

Only HD radio can make satellite radio look good at this point. Our latest study indicates that just about every consumer whom we asked whether they were interested in purchasing an HD radio in the next six months said they weren't because they couldn't see the benefits of it.

HD radio is almost still-born and the radio industry continues to invest heavily. Good news this week was that Best Buy would stock HD radios in all of their nationwide stores. That's a positive step. Only one problem: no one cares.

So, we're experiencing the flattening of satellite radio which will continue to experience growth but at a much slower rate than previously expected and we're seeing almost non-growth for HD radio.

Terrestrial radio continues to be challenged for its time-spent-listening by other new media such as MP3 players, Internet radio and cell phones, but if trends hold, satellite radio will not be the grim reaper it was once thought it would be.

Terrestrial is far more resilient than many on Wall Street thought. It will still have its challenges but because of its purest benefits it will stick around for quite a while longer: It's free. It's easy to operate. Everyone has one. Everyone knows its benefits. And the public doesn't seem to mind paying for it with commercials.

To paraphrase Charles Dickens "these are the best of times - these are the worst of times" for media consumers, but at least there's plenty to choose from and most consumers are the real winners.

Radio Gets a Military Strategy Lesson

Did you see the news item this month from ZenithOptimedia that Internet advertising will surpass radio spending next year! Another example of the old man getting beat up by a youngun. But this shouldn't be a surprise. The radio industry has seen this coming for some time. You don't witness 35%+ Internet advertising growth rates without feeling them breathing down your neck.

But poor terrestrial radio has really been getting the short end of the stick these last few years.

First it was the dot-com bust, then the 9/11 advertising pull-back, then satellite radio's big PR push between 2002 and 2005, alongside Gen-Y turning off their FM radio's so fast you can hear the massive click in unison.

The Internet started out as a tough sell to ad agencies. In the late 90's, my LA station, KCBS-FM was among the first radio stations to build a working Internet business model for a new radio revenue stream. We had to be creative because advertising agencies in the late 90's by and large didn't see the benefit. They couldn't relate to the Internet. It only took Advertising agency media queens 5 years to figure out that audiences were splintering off traditional radio and that it was prudent to follow them.

Now radio is smaller part of a pool of ad dollars that is only slightly larger than it was in 2000 and that pool is being spread around to as many media targets as possible and still be effective. Radio used to be the targeting medium, then the Internet (thanks to Google) taught ad buyers how to pin-point buys and traditional radio became a reach medium officially. Unfortunately, in today's consumer market, reach and frequency isn't as effective as it used to be.

The Pincer Movement

This reminds me of a classic military strategy that has been used to some extent in nearly every war in history. It's called The Pincer Movement or Double Envelopment and it has been played upon traditional radio perfectly.

The maneuver is mostly self-explanatory; the flanks of the opponent (traditional radio) are attacked simultaneously in a pinching motion after the opponent has advanced towards the center of an army (Satellite Radio) which is responding by moving its outside forces to the enemy's flanks in order to surround it. At the same time, a second layer of pincer attacks (on-demand audio such as iPods and the Internet in this example), so as to prevent any attempts to reinforce the target unit.

And like most armies caught in this pincer movement, radio never knew what hit them. They became distracted by the foe in front of them (satellite radio) and didn't see the second layer in the rear-view mirror.

Such battles often end in surrender or destruction of the enemy force, although the encircled force (radio) can attempt a 'breakout'. A breakout is done with the encircled forces (radio) attacking a weak point in the encirclement, with allied forces attacking the same weak point, until there is a breakthrough and the encircled forces can move again. Hmmm...does radio have any allies that can assist in this battle?

Once the Radio industry recognizes that it is encircled, it should be asking, "What are the weak points in the encirclement?" and can radio use any of its "enemies" to attack these soft points?

I can think of several - in fact, Bridge Ratings has been publishing studies for the past two years uncovering this exact strategy. As an industry, however, radio has performed an uncoordinated attack and as any general will tell you, a confused and unorganized enemy is that much weaker.

Is the radio industry a weak opponent? If so, why?

Could it be that we have had years of poor leadership from our industry 'generals' who have been mis-leading (or poorly leading) our major forces (Clear Channel, CBS) without an apparent understanding of strategy or even the battlefield?

Or could it be that our strategist, the National Association of Broadcasting, has failed the industry by not leading the charge?

In any case, while ad spending on Internet radio still lags far behind terrestrial radio (but is advancing), the squeeze is on and total Internet spending will surpass the radio industry by the end of 2008 with about $20 billion that in all honesty is mostly new money. Radio can benefit from this windfall by not assuming that it has been left standing at the starting gate. It needs to continue its aggressive approach to capture what used to be called non-traditional advertising - new media advertising which is about to become 2008's version of traditional.

Think about it!

XM/Sirius - a Consolidation Misstep

News of the XM and Sirius satellite radio merger sent tremors through both the business and media world. But at this early stage the jury seems confused, if not out, on whether this is a good idea.

Certainly from a business perspective, the saving of $7 billion annually is a good start to pulling this business back from the brink of disaster. And placing Mel Karmazin in control is another good move since Mel's proven his prowess at goosing his media enterprises with operational effectiveness.

But what of the consumer? Is a monopoly such as the one potentially created by this merger good for the consumer?

The topic of a satellite radio sector merger has been floating around for months and Bridge Ratings has conducted some preliminary research on what effect such a merger would have on the satellite radio consumer both current and prospective.

1. The "why" factor

Over 90% of those currently subscribing to either or both services had no opinion on a proposed merger other than what such a merger would do for them.

• Will it mean that they have to get new equipment?
  
• Will their current radio work with the 'other' service
• Will prices go up or down now that there is no competition?
• 56% of both current and prospective satellite radio subscribers are confident that monthly subscription prices will increase - certainly for new subscribers and likely for current subscribers when their current contracts expire.

67% of current subscribers don't understand or appreciate the business reasons why such a merger would take place. That's left to those who understand Profit and Loss statements and subscriber attrition reports. Most consumers don't understand why such a merger would be necessary so soon. Many of those we surveyed perceive the satellite radio business as new, vibrant and exciting. Unaware of their financial difficulties, most current and prospective subscribers can't rationalize why such a combination of two strong companies is necessary at such an early stage of the industry's development. For many consumers, satellite radio is still perceived as a brand new technology and service.

2. Subscriptions

In three different studies conducted between August 2006 and January 2007, it was confirmed that a combined entity of a singular satellite radio business would not garner as many total subscribers as two distinct competitive entities over the first two years of the enterprise. The reasons are many, but primarily the culprit is the elimination of consumer choice in the manner these services have been sold. The previous combined impact of two companies heavily marketing their benefits to the masses tends to generate increasing market awareness and interest. Marketing budgets will likely be trimmed - this is one of consolidation's nasty little secrets. However, reducing marketing is not in the best interest of satellite radio at this time. In fact, among those consumers who have expressed interest in satellite radio but who have yet to subscribe, 62% need a better reason to purchase. As yet, they have not been 'sold', 'convinced' or 'motivated' by the marketing to make that purchase decision. Marketing is a key to sustained subscriber growth.

As of this writing, Bridge Ratings has re-evaluated its growth projections for the satellite radio industry. Should the merger proceed and be completed by the end of 2007 (an unlikely event), we see 2008 subscriber counts for the combined entity to be 8% lower than if both companies were to continue operating separately.

3. The Monopoly Model

The creation of one superSat company provides some new opportunities for Mel Karmazin and the new combo's shareholders and Wall Street watchers. One is monopoly power. Monopoly power is usually defined as the ability of a firm to earn high profits by raising and keeping the prices of its products substantially above the levels at which those products would be priced in competitive markets. That is, a firm with monopoly power can charge high prices and get away with it - the market will not punish it for doing so. In a competitive industry, in contrast, the market will punish a high-price firm by the loss of its customers to rivals with lower prices.

Karmazin has hinted at subscription price hikes long before this latest wrinkle and now has the power to do just that despite the fact that the new merged company is considering a tiered pricing model with an a la cart approach for the consumer. But monopoly power is undesirable for several reasons, some of them obvious:

• High prices reduce the wealth of consumers. The use of monopoly power is obviously undesirable to consumers because no one likes to pay high prices. Such higher prices may make the firm with monopoly power rich and make the consumers of its products poor. These effects on the distribution of wealth are generally considered undesirable. Even the current subscription rate of $12.95 per month has had most consumers think twice about why they need satellite radio.
• High prices lead to resource allocation. Economists give greater emphasis to a second undesirable effect of prices that exceed the competitive level. Such prices tend to reduce quantities of the products that consumers demand. Allocation of profits is not necessarily guaranteed to be in the public interest.
• Monopoly power creates an obstacle to efficiency and innovation. A company with monopoly power is one that does not face much effective competition - and consequently it does not have much reason to fear loss of business to others. Where this is so in the satellite radio business, there be less incentive for management to make the effort to produce efficiently with a minimum of waste or to undertake the expense and risks of innovation such as was experienced during the two company's competitive battles. The result is that the coming product from a merged satellite radio business may be of poorer quality than it would if the company possessed no monopoly power.

While this is not intended as a class on economics, the point is that in many instances, monopoly power has provided a solution to struggling businesses and has inevitably been a disservice to the consumer.

4. Programming & Culture

In research Bridge Ratings has conducted, XM has consistently been considered the service with the better original programming. Satellite radio is a music medium and in the opinion of thousands of consumers studied by Bridge Ratings, no one does a better job at it than XM. What will happen to the creative structure in place at XM once Mel begins with the consolidation scythe? After all, as with terrestrial radio, consolidation of these two satellite radio companies should save billions a year. Those cost savings will have some bearing on the quality of the product much like personnel and resource cuts have negatively impacted terrestrial radio in the last ten years.

No, it seems to me that once again the American consumer will get a front row view of where they stand in the eyes of U.S. regulatory agencies. This proposed merger must pass muster with the FCC, the DOJ and others. And when one looks at the business end of this deal, and how government bail-outs have been common, clearing regulatory hurdles is a safe bet to save the failure of another space venture.

5. The Balance Sheet

The balance sheets represent the biggest problem for these companies.

Sirius has almost $1.1 billion in long-term debt. At XM that number is over $1.3 billion. Sirius has cash and securities of $350 million. XM has $285 million. So, combined debt would be $2.4 billion against about $600 million in cash. Payables and accrued expenses of the combined company would be over $500 million. To have a significant value to shareholders, the combined business would have to pay down at least $200 million in debt per year. None of the debt is due until 2009, but the majority is due by 2013. The combined company would be able to partially use cash on hand and could go to the capital markets with a new debt issue with the sole purpose of refinancing that amount due in 2009 (and with convertible debt if they were smart and/or able). All of this if revenue growth can continue at 10% quarter over previous quarter and expense growth can be held to 5%.

Mel Karmazin is a smart, strategic business operator. He will find a way to make this work. Wall Street and investors - even the government - will see the immediate benefits of such a joint-relationship. What will take more time will be confirmation of whether such a merger is in the public interest.

The Merger of Satellite Radio & What's Wrong with Business in America

Once again the spectre of the two satellite radio companies merging into one business unit that would theoretically enjoy the fruits of 'consolidation' is gaining attention. Both companies are bleeding red ink so why not merge?

Because it is not in the public interest. A new group calling itself the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio was founded by a group of George Washington University law students whose take is "if the only two satellite radio companies are permitted to combine, consumers will be totally at the mercy of a monopoly provider." Yet, once again it doesn't seem to matter where the public interest lies; Wall Street's mouth is beginning to water over the implications of these two behemoths combining to form what they think is a viable business model.

The proposed merger of satellite television's Echo Star Communications and Hughes Electronics was grounded by the FCC on the basis that the companies did not "demonstrate that the merger would serve the public interest." Critics of the proposed deal said the merger would create a satellite television monopoly by combining the nation's number one and two DBS operators. Sound familiar?

The FCC Chairman at the time, Michael Powell stated "If economic history has taught us anything, it is that healthy competitive markets not regulated monopolies, maximize consumer welfare."

Proponents of an XM-Sirius merger claim that a single satellite radio entity would be optimal for both parties. The combined firm would have more pricing power, lower operating expenses and would no longer face the risk of bidding up the cost of exclusive content and distribution agreements.

It seems to this writer that the reasons for the merger don't consider the interest, use or preference of the consumer. The reasons seem to offer an exit strategy for two companies that have mismanaged and miscalculated the sector's potential.

During the holiday season of 2006, Bridge Ratings' satellite radio study revealed that during the course of 2006 despite all of the hype, marketing and special promotions, consumer interest in satellite radio was slipping. Satellite Radio's "Brand stimulation" diminished after Howard Stern's blockbuster 2005 holiday season introduction; consumers were finding it more difficult to find reasons to subscribe. We discovered that satellite radio's product lifectyle became stunted during the critical "Introduction" and "Growth" phases; the sector's growth stage fell victim to consumer apathy which has caused both satellite radio companies to reconsider their marketing plans for 2007 and beyond.

Yet despite the increasing costs of subscriber acquisition, spending more to keep the satellite radio boat afloat is really their only option. The boards of both companies will likely approve multi-million dollar increases in these budgets plunging both further into the net loss abyss creating louder cries from Wall Street for a merger to save the sector. And it goes 'round and round.

But aside from the financial and consumer apathy side of the equation, there is the distressing thought that a potential merger would likely swallow the culture and essence of XM. Its better programming and image I believe is founded in an in-house culture rich in music appreciation and a desire to push the envelope of radio programming. The product is clearly king at XM, spilling out of the creative mind of Senior Programming Officer Lee Abrams. The hallway culture of the Mel Karmazin-run Sirius reeks of corporate oversight. If you ever want to discover for yourself the difference in these two companies, go for a tour.

For whatever reason, somewhere along the way, in many business sectors, the consumer's interest is no longer the focus of business. As consumers we have lost something integral to our enjoyment of products and services in America. There are exceptions (Starbucks), but we have entered an age where investors and Wall Street have overwhelmed the importance of consumer satisfaction (traditional radio), and I wonder if we will ever find our way out of the woods.